High CourtsDivision Bench

Smithkline Beecham PLC. vs V.R. Bumtaria

Delhi High Court · Decided on 16 December 2005 · Citation: (2005) 12 DEL CK 0129

HON’BLE JUDGES
Markandeya Katju, Acting C.J. · Badar Durrez Ahmed, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
CS (OS) No. 1426 of 2005 and is No. 10353 of 2005
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 358 words

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—The plaintiff had instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of the trademark, passing off, damages, delivery etc. in respect of its registered trademark ARIFLO. This mark was being used in respect of the pharmaceutical preparations and was registered under Registration No.711925 in Class 5. However, during the pendency of the present proceedings the plaintiff and the defendant have decided to amicably settle their disputes and have ultimately arrived at a compromise in the form of this application under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In essence, it has been agreed by and between the parties and, particularly, by the defendant that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the mark ARIFLO in India and abroad. The defendant has also undertaken not to manufacture, purchase, sell, offer to sell, advertise, promote or otherwise deal in any manner whatsoever in pharmaceutical preparations under the mark ACIFLO or any other mark identical or similar to the plaintiff''s mark ARIFLO so as to infringe trade mark No. 711925 in Class 5. Rest of the details of the compromise are set out in the application itself. The compromise application is signed by the defendant No.1 being the sole proprietor of the defendant No.2 and by Mr. Rahul Sethi, the constituted attorney of the plaintiff. It has also been signed by the respective counsel for the parties. Affidavits of Mr. Rahul Sethi and the defendant No.1 in support of this application are also on record. The application is exhibited as Exhibit `C-1''.

2.

I have gone through the application which contains the agreement and compromise between the parties and I find that the same is lawful and accordingly, there is no impediment in recording the compromise and disposing of the suit in terms of the compromise. Accordingly, Decree be issued in terms of paragraphs 27 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the plaint. The plaintiff has given up the rest of the reliefs.

3.

The decree be prepared accordingly. This application (Exhibit `C-1'') shall form part of the decree. No order as to cost.

4.

The suit as well as the application stand disposed of.